Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 11/24/2014 1:08 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: <snip>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will
>>>>>>>> lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly
>>>>>>>> another fork, or possibly another distro. But Debian will
>>>>>>>> lose users.
>>>>>>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to
>>>>>>> Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us
>>>>>>> "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people
>>>>>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are
>>>>>> many companies I know of who have looked at jessie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and
>>>>>>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it
>>>>>>> overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of
>>>>>>> systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do
>>>>>>> know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of
>>>>>>> instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other
>>>>>>> distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice
>>>>>>> lost users - quite the reverse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came
>>>>>> to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see
>>>>>> the way Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll
>>>>>> probably end up on BSD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be
>>>>>>>> hit as hard.
>>>>>>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even
>>>>>> staying with sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the
>>>>>> handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should
>>>>>>> file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if*
>>>>>>> they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported
>>>>>>> customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every
>>>>>>> confidence they will continue to do so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT
>>>>>> customized pre-packaged) software to the system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind.
>>> Agreed (also fs guidelines)
>>>
>>>>> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the
>>>>> basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make;
>>>>> make install
>>> and "checkinstall"
>>>>>
>>>> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of
>>>> software they create?
>>> No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or
>>> install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will*
>>> withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and
>>> whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what
>>> your use-case is...
>>>
>> These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's,
>> or people who learned from those sysadmins. Back then you did put stuff
>> in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance. And the company is not changing.
>
>
> Well, just to be accurate, most folks who started with Unix in the 80s
> install local stuff into
> /usr/...
> and
> /usr/local/....
>
> and there's also /opt
>
> And most well-formed source trees that I've come across are designed to
> download into /usr/local/src and make into /usr/local by default.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Miles
>
For user stuff, yes. But for system tools, they often installed
executables in /bin and/or /sbin. And they install other files in /etc,
/var, etc., as appropriate.
A LOT of unix systems did this, because there were no packagers.
Jerry
Reply to: